Paul’s purpose is evident in 5:28-29, where Paul speaks of the husband loving his own body (i.e., his wife). Few things can be more united than a person’s head and the body underneath it. He introduces body imagery where Christ is the “head” and the church is his “body.”Ĭatch this –> a head and the body make up one flesh, one thing, one whole body. From the start, Paul underscores submission (5:21-24). The oneness metaphor, borrowed from Genesis, serves a specific function within the context. Again, Ephesians 5:31-32 is not about sεx. Paul’s intention in the passage and in quoting of Genesis 2 has nothing to do with sεx. Josh’s methodological mistake is plain to me: he does not consider the function of the metaphor within Ephesians 5. We can’t do theology without reckoning with metaphors. Hold the phone! Paul never ever says this! He says that the relationship between a husband-wife symbolizes the Christ-church relationship. The linchpin of Josh’s argument is summarized in a 2018 talk he gave at a West Coast TGC conference, where interprets Ephesians 5:31-32 saying, “ Paul says here that sεx is a great mystery” (6:50 minute mark). I won’t disagree that the meaning of “one flesh” can include sεxual union, but it does not necessarily do so. Second, the “one flesh” phrasing is more difficult because all uses refer back to Gen 2:24, making it difficult to interpret with precision. Aside from Genesis 2, it does not refer to married couples. It always connotes clinging to, sticking close, or attaching oneself. In fact, Israel is told to “ hold fast to the Lord your God” (Joshua 23:8). I want to make sure we understand the words being discussed.įirst, “cleave” (προσκολλάω) in New Testament and Greek OT does NOT indicate sεxual union. Just to be thorough, let’s briefly look at Paul’s words. In both passages, Paul draws from Genesis 2. There is some warrant for this, such as 1 Cor 6:16-17,ĭo you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. His argument hangs on the meaning of two ideas: “leave and cleave” and “one flesh.” In my experience, people routinely interpret becoming “one flesh” as a euphemism for sεx. “ is the most significant shorthand for sεx in Scripture.” Yet that second part, about the two becoming one flesh, is consummation language that refers to the union of husband and wife. “ Leave and cleave” is marriage language (we’ll look at this in a future chapter), and the surrounding verses are all about husbands and wives, not hook-up culture. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. In Ephesians 5, a “hall of fame” marriage passage, the apostle Paul proclaims: Josh asserts both “ Sεx is an icon of Christ and the church” and “ Sεx is an icon of salvation.” He arrives here based on his reading of Ephesians 5. How do we discern appropriate applications and implications of the text? We pay careful attention to exegesis and theological methods. People want him to disavow various implications he takes from the metaphor. Keep in mind: it’s a metaphor so it’s certainly worthy of debate what its legitimate implications. Where the problem lies in the implications Josh draws from the metaphor. Few people will disagree with him on that since it’s straight from Ephesians 5. Josh affirms a basic correlation: the “one flesh” union symbolizes Christ and the church. Also, abusers and rapists have used reasoning that sounds remarkably similar to what we find in Josh’s book (though I’m not accusing Josh of criminality). One reason why it matters is this: his starting point is so broadly accepted but most people don’t realize it. Instead, I want to explain how he arrives at those comments. I don’t want to rehash each remark that’s drawn criticism most people reading this blog will know what he said.
If you skim blog articles, I’ll tell you now: the most important sections below are “Ephesians 5 Is Not About Sεx” and “What Josh Misunderstands Genesis 2.” The former is probably the most important of the two.
Josh butler full#
His logic is made explicit in chapter one of his forthcoming book A Beautiful Union.įor full disclosure, my wife first pointed this out to me I’ve expounded on her intuition. Put simply, I highlight fundamental flaws in his argument, specifically his exegesis of Ephesians and Genesis. Instead, we’ll consider the interpretive approach that led to his conclusions. I’m also not going to focus primarily on his conclusions, as disagreeable as they are. This post is not primarily written for Josh, but rather for those who read and are affected by arguments like his.
0 kommentar(er)
